"feminism" and "radical feminism" etc. etc. That would be equivalent as
labelling any critic of any work labelled as "feminist" as being a
"Reactionary", "Radical Hominists", Male Supramacist" etc. You might as
well use terms like "Pig face" and "Mush brain" to make your arguments. If
there is a particular scholar whose ideas you wish to engage, engage their
ARGUMENTS directly and specifically with counter arguments ("You suck"
doesn't count). The strength of the Internet is its ability to circumvent
the mass media tendency towards soundbites and mudslinging. I hear radical
used an an adjective agaisnt Republicans, feminists, economists etc. but
the term is less informative than it is inflammatory. Radical compared to
whom? Statements like "Feminists have gone beyond the laudable aims of the
early advocates women's rights". What does this mean? Which Feminist
agenda? Which feminists support this? Which specific aims of this
"agenda" are objectable? Reproductive freedom? Advocating for better
child-care opportunities? Protecting wives and husbands from spousal
battery? Allowing greater flexibilty for gender roles? Trying to eliminate
favortism and bias towards males in primary schools? Freedom of the
individual to select an adult sexual partner appropriate to preference and
not the specifications of State and community?
Is the extension of freedoms and opportunity the objectionable
"agenda", or is not the "agenda" but the particular methods of particular
activists which are objectionable? If you answer "They are all the same",
and cannot come up with any particular incidents, objections or arguments
but only exhibit a gut feeling of reaction and antipathy, than perhaps
there is an "agenda" at work here. We have met the enemy and it is us.
Since this is an anthropology list, perhaps it might be more
interesting to various members to discuss the cultural aspects of
perceptions and attitudes towards feminism in the various societies that
members of the list belong. For example in the States many women are
loathe to identify themselves as feminists, yet are in broad agreement with
many of the goals of modern feminists. Is this the case in other
societies? I think there is much anthropological fodder here.